The original article can be found here.
It is with great pleasure that Young Libertarians for America announce their support and endorsement for Steve Kerbel for the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States.
Steve brings a much needed example of libertarianism to American politics, not fearing to embrace the philosophy in whole.
Over the last several months, Mr. Kerbel has demonstrated effective communication, dedication to the liberty movement, sturdy professionalism, eloquent presentation, and enthusiasm not seen in a Libertarian Presidential candidate for some time.
We believe he has the means to translate our philosophy across party lines and will swing many independent voters to explore the richness of a truly free society.
To find out more about Steve check out his website at SteveKerbel2016.com
I wonder if Young Libertarians for America endorse his behavior?
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/colorado-springs-insurer-faces-securities-lawsuit-by-state
http://www.scribd.com/doc/295937699/National-Unity-v-Kerbel#scribd
Google to find more.
Still lost. Keynes was very different from the Austrians in his economic approach and prescriptions so in what sense is Keynesianism “Austrian”?
Paulie, that’s because it’s Keynesian Austrian economic policy. (8^))
That’s certainly not what is known as Austrian economic policy.
Paulie, McAfee wants to solve unemployment via large scale government funded public works projects.
?
I have heard from the Kerbel campaign and they have issued a statement. I will be be posting it to IPR later when I get off work.
Should read, “while sitting on the Libertarian National Committee.”
Jill,
I do not wish to comment on matters that I don’t know much about… i.e. these cases. For those at the top, not individuals agents, suits are not uncommon in my understanding. It would surprise me to see many suits against individual agents, though I have seen plenty of those as well. I just know the industry is a litigious one. And sometimes the Plaintiffs are absolutely right. Sometimes they are not.
If I felt there was any deliberate wrongdoing in the various suits I would denounce. Allegations are allegations, and I have had no reason to disbelieve what Kerbel has told me personally. I have spoken with him on these issues for my conscience. But I do not and cannot make statements on behalf of the campaign as I don’t work with them. I think they should.
I agree with Stewart’s comments about being leery about nominating newbies to the Libertarian Party or movement (I am will to accept people who have a record of being small “l” libertarians, but who only recently joined the LP) as candidates, particularly for high level offices. I agree with his comments about Root as well. It is pretty disturbing that there were enough delegates to the LP National Convention in Las Vegas to elect somebody to the LNC who had so little commitment to the party and movement that he started openly campaigning for Mitt Romney will sitting on the Libertarian National Committee.
The same points the Stewart brought up about Root could also be said about Bob Barr. I found it to be pretty damn disturbing that Barr was immediately appointed to fill a vacant seat on the LNC right after he joined the party, especially considering that Barr had no track record of being a libertarian prior to this. It was also disturbing that while sitting on the LNC, he continued to raise money for big government Republicans (far more money than he ever brought in for the LP), and that he praised the US government’s drug war intervention in South America.
Shouldn’t seats on the LNC go to people who have shown years of commitment to the Libertarian Party and/or cause?
I understand that you work in litigation, Caryn, and I believe you said you work with attorneys who defend insurance companies. Of course you see lots of lawsuits. I’m on the other end, though, and maintain a license to sell many types of insurance ( at last count, we offer something like 90 products).
In my world, it is a very big deal to get sued. I’ve done my job for over thirty years, and have NEVER been accused of any of the things in the complaint from July, although some of the items listed are out of the scope of my job. I would probably not be so alarmed if this wasn’t the second time Mr. Kerbel was accused of bad representation, at least that we know of. Of course, I’ll await any explanation that might come through.
Stewart said: “And remember, if the platform debate really gets boring we can all head to Disney World!!!’
Sounds good to me! My son just started a new job in Orlando yesterday.
Hi Stewart, thanks for the well wishes. In all seriousness, this is some bug, but my health has not been great for the past year. I have lost over twenty pounds simply because I don’t eat. Everything is gross. While I am pleased to lose weight, this isn’t the way to do it.
On the note of “spamming”– I am the one who posts the articles — I post a lot of different things, and I do not see our role here strictly of “news” but of information. I find anything issued by campaigns as information (I posted information from that candidate announcing he wasn’t running any longer that no one even knew was running.) I post what is interesting to me.
And I like to help campaigns in general unless I completely oppose them. I helped some friends make a Gary Johnson graphic yesterday.
I am not in this for any candidate. I have always been very clear. My interest and passion is this Party.
Jill, thank you. I have not been this sick in a few years.
Stewart, allegations are just that. In these suits there are general deep pockets with E&O carriers and the like. In his response to dismiss jurisdiction, Steve denied deliberate wrongdoing. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. The insurance industry is very litigious and deals are made. Do I like any of this? No. Will I be watching it carefully. Yes. Do I believe so far that there was no deliberate fraudulent actions. Yes. Until I am shown otherwise. There are allegations and there have been settlements. I do not and never would support deliberate fraud.
I have encouraged the campaign to make statement(s). I am not on the campaign, so I pass along my thoughts as they are which can be taken or left. I will have to make decisions for myself based on whether or not these statement(s) are forthcoming.
Anonymous people posting though do not earn too favourable reaction since motivations are not on the table.
But as far as getting information out? I am a sunshine-transparency kind of person. But with the disclosures has to be a healthy dose of reality in judging the merits.
Tom,
I appreciate you brightening my day, but I’ve seen stranger things happen. He may be completely innocent of everything, or he may not. My fear is more that someone brand new, whether Kerbel or McAfee or other, gets our nomination.
Root was way too new to the party when he ran. All of his LINO positions came out during the campaign, and he was toast by the time the LSLA debate took place. Root’s business record was known, and it was a factor in him failing to get enough support to become our nominee and hurt him later in his run for chair. He should have never been put on the LNC, and he should not have been re-elected to it. He wasn’t even trying to pretend to be libertarian at that point in time, so voting him on in Vegas shows just how gullible the delegates can be.
That is why I am fearful that someone like Kerbel might get the nomination. He platform has been “evolving” and his videos, which are NOT NEWS, are spammed all over IPR as news by his supporters.
On another note, I also hope that Caryn (and anyone else sick) gets well soon. We want a huge turnout and fun party in Orlando!
And remember, if the platform debate really gets boring we can all head to Disney World!!!
I’m sorry to hear that you’re not well, Caryn, and I hope you’re up and about soon.
The BBB revoking his accreditation, and the National Unity suit, both happened after Kerbel announced his candidacy in March. They would not have been there if you first looked then.
BBB,
Oddly enough, I looked up Rio National’s BBB record as soon as I noticed Kerbel’s association with the company, but I must have found a different record. The one I looked at seemed to demonstrate decent action and detailed response vis a vis what seemed to be only a few customer complaints, and the “government action” part didn’t satisfy me that the “government action” was necessarily justified.
Nonetheless, it is always worth looking into. Root’s BBB record should have been a heavy contributor to his downfall in 2008, but he followed his strategy — “lie about it and hope nobody pays attention to the fact that Knapp publicly pantsed me over it” — and his strategy worked.
Stewart,
You write:
“This will burn the LP if he is the nominee.”
Let me brighten your day with two observations:
1) He isn’t going to be the nominee; and
2) Even if he was, the Libertarian Party still gets so little, and so non-detailed, attention in the mainstream media that the people who would notice this would be the people who already have their minds firmly made up one way or another vis a vis the LP and who don’t plan to change their minds.
And that’s assuming the worst — that there’s fire behind the smoke and that he either can’t or won’t explain himself in a way that either makes the problem disappear or turns it into a virtue he can run on rather than a vice he’d prefer to stay mum on.
I’m not going to assume that worst, at least for the moment, if for no other reason than that I wouldn’t buy “Steve Kerbel gets the Libertarian nomination” at 100-to-1 odds in a prediction market and therefore don’t anticipate it being a bid deal. I’ll be keeping my eye on it and doing a little more digging just in case his chances improve, though.
Remember, in 2008, Wayne Allyn Root did everything short of burning a cross in Obama’s front yard to ensure that the public thought Libertarians were racist morons. And nobody noticed except for Libertarians and a few Democrats who wouldn’t vote Libertarian if FDR and Adlai Stevenson rose from the dead and ran on our ticket. A few more people than that noticed that Barr was a Dixiecrat, but not many.
On July 23, 2015 this business’s accreditation in the BBB was revoked by the BBB’s Board of Directors due to its failure to adhere to the BBB requirement of, “Build Trust-Establish and maintain a positive track record in the marketplace. Be free from government action that demonstrates a significant failure to support BBB ethical principles in marketplace transaction(this requires a determination by BBB as to the nature of any violation, whether it was caused or condoned by management, and actions taken to resolve underlying issues that led to the government action).”
On 07/29/2015 this company’s accreditation in BBB was revoked by BBB’s Board of Directors due to recent government action involving the business’s customer relations which indicates a significant failure of the business to meet standards of conduct expected of a BBB member.
http://www.bbb.org/southern-colorado/business-reviews/insurance-companies/rio-national-insurance-services-in-colorado-springs-co-87340031#sthash.qnkAgBpp.dpuf
So the accusation is insurance fraud? Oh great. I worked IT in the insurance industry years ago. This kind of “error” does not happen unless someone intentionally messes with stuff.
They would not be likely to go after him without evidence, and I see references to him having already “settled” one case and losing licensing in a state. This will burn the LP if he is the nominee. Anyone supporting him should protect themselves by getting as far away from his campaign as possible.
This is really bad. And he joined the party just before announcing? He’s nuts. Just as crazy as some of the others.
Tom, I have a PACER account and was willing to spend some money. I don’t think this is the same case.
Here is what I know so far on this one. It is dismissed as of 11/16/15 due to lack of jurisdiction. The case should not have have been filed in Texas allegedly. The Plaintiff agreed to this. Whether it will be re-filed elsewhere remains to be seen. In his response with the defense of lack of Texas jurisdiction, Kerbel denied each of the allegations. That is of course standard form in court cases, but I would note that for the record. The case presently then does not exist.
I want all information out there as well. Correction to that: I work in insurance. I would like information on the relevant ones that come up. Not archives of the inevitable insurance litigation. I have worked on literally thousands of cases for clients over the years.
Caryn,
Sure, there might be other ways. I just listed the three that I could think of.
If I’m not mistaken, the case that someone posted the PACER complaint on has been briefly discussed, by me. What I came across was a motion to have Kerbel removed from the case based on his agreement to settle by doing/not doing the things the complaint was seeking to make him do/not do. I’m fairly sure it’s the same case, anyway. I don’t have an active PACER account at the moment, since nobody’s paying me, or paying my expenses, to do oppo research, so I pretty much rely on the breadcrumbs that show up in public-facing search engines and so forth.
Thanks llanga, it is only getting worse (meaning my sickness).
Tom,
I am not sure those are entirely the three ways, and I also (in my very sick state right now) am not sure that this Texas issue wasn’t *already* discussed. What is in fact happening is that the issues have been discussed, then are brought up again as if they were not. Not sure of a way to correct that (and correcting it isn’t my problem, I don’t work on the campaign) and I couldn’t think my way out of a paper bag this morning.
I have sent messages to the campaign saying I need more information for myself and it would be helpful to me to have it one place. I am not *anyone* in that organization so not sure what I will receive.
Matt,
You write:
“This is one side of the story, that is written for the sole purpose of making the accused look as bad as possible”
Very true, as is the case with the other legal matters.
But I’m not sure how relevant that is.
The other side of these stories, we’ve been getting in little bits and pieces, and each time only after someone notices something.
When you are trying to be a public figure, there are three ways to handle parts of your background/history that might raise red flags with people:
1) Make a clean breast of it. Put the full record out there with extensive commentary on what it means and why it either should be forgiven or shouldn’t be seen as disqualifying. Then it will either remain an issue or cease to be an issue.
2) Reverse the story in a big way. Take all that bad stuff and turn yourself into the hero in the narrative, especially if that’s true, but whether it’s really true or not. Talk it up. Make it into a PLUS. See Root, Wayne Allyn for examples.
3) Don’t say anything about any of it unless someone else notices it and brings it up, then just say the bare minimum you can get by with in each case and hope it all just kind of goes away on its own.
All three of those ways of doing things have their disadvantages, but number (3), which seems to be Mr. Kerbel’s chosen way of handling things, is nothing but disadvantage except in the case where nobody does notice. Even if he’s pure as the driven snow, he makes himself look sketchier and sketchier with each little piece of information that emerges from some source other than him.
I have been terribly sick now for a few weeks.
Sorry to hear that, Caryn. Get well soon!
I have placed inquiries. There are two wrong-headed approaches to take.
One- to take accusations as true without hearing what can be heard from the other side (an ongoing case causes its own issues)
Two- to out of hand disregard any accusations
Both approaches are wrong thus I made inquiries.
Lawsuits are rarely black and white Jill. There is no person named “PACER”- PACER is an acronym for Public Access to Electronic Records meaning this is a copy of a record – likely the Complaint- filed in Federal Court.
I do not know the particulars of each case, I haven’t kept track of them.
People in this industry sue and be sued all the time. Sometimes there is something to it- others not and pleadings are very one-sided as that is the nature of our adversarial system.
I have been terribly sick now for a few weeks. When I get a chance, I will see if any substantive responsive pleadings have been filed. I will also alert the campaign to this post.
If it is still ongoing, people likely will not comment.
I don’t agree, Matt. The insurance business is actually very black and white. The only way it works is if a pattern of high ethics is always in place. Remember, we’re selling and dealing with products people can’t see.
That could pretty easily be explained away as business deal doesn’t work out, party that lost money wants to recover money, lawsuit is filed, business as usual.
I’m not saying that’s all there is to it. But, lawsuits like this are filed all the time. This is one side of the story, that is written for the sole purpose of making the accused look as bad as possible.
I have read the 7-page complaint. This is most likely still going on, since this was filed in July, 2015. This is different than the Missouri episode that he explained away. If Kerbel is guilty of what this complaint is about, this is nothing short of deliberate fraud. Since this is a repeat of much of what happened in Missouri, I’m highly alarmed.
Caryn, did you know about this?
Austrian Keynesianism. The Fraud, ummh, Fair Tax, or sort of. Bad business management. Huge campaign debts. In 2008 we had at a half dozen solid candidates (I am including Barr, Root, and Ruwart in that half-dozen), some of whom even started campaigning before the election year. (8^((
“Examples of Kerbel’s negligence include: 1269 drivers under the age of 55 received a mature driver discount reserved only for drivers over 55. 51 of those insured who received over 55 discounts were actually under 20. Safe driver discounts were provided when not earned, genders were misstated and insureds with at-fault accidents were not surcharged.”
These are very serious misrepresentations. I’ll read the file you posted, Pacer. I need to ask Kerbel for his explanations of these serious charges.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/295937699/National-Unity-v-Kerbel
In soliciting National Unity’s business on behalf of Rio, Kerbel represented that he was an experienced non-standard auto insurance administrator. Kerbel did not disclose that his insurance license had been revoked in Missouri and that he had agreed never to apply for a Missouri insurance license again, or that his service as Program Administrator had been the primary cause of the insolvency of Pride National Insurance Company. Nor did Kerbel advise National Unity when, after Rio’s retention as Program Administrator for National Unity, that Kerbel was sanctioned by the Colorado securities regulators for and Ordered by them to make more than $800,000 in restitution. The relationship between National Unity and Rio was in the nature of a Managing General Agency relationship, definitionally giving rise to a confidential relationship and a fiduciary duty running to National Unity. The National Unity/Rio agreement was a typical one in the insurance industry and shows why the company/administrator relationship involves a high level of trust and confidence. These arrangements allow the Administrator to collect substantial upfront fees and commissions in consideration for running the program with reasonable care generally and, specifically, calculating and setting rates in a manner that sets a large enough premium to cover claims. Kerbel negligently designed the program with rates for customers far lower than those customers merited. Kerbel also acted negligently in his supervision of the manner in which Rio adjusted and resolved claims. As a result of Kerbel’s negligence, National Unity sustained damages when it was required to bear the costs of claims that far exceeded the low premiums charged. Further, Kerbel benefited by earning money from the sale of the policies while National Unity lost money by paying claims that could not be supported based upon the low premiums charged.
Kerbel’s negligence included, but was not limited to the following: (1) proposing low rates, (2) misapplication of the underwriting scoring system by setting rates lower than the customer’s driving record merited, the result of which led to poor drivers receiving low rates, (3) poor record keeping which did not allow National Unity to discover the other negligent acts, and (4) negligent claims handling.
Examples of Kerbel’s negligence include: 1269 drivers under the age of 55 received a mature driver discount reserved only for drivers over 55. 51 of those insured who received over 55 discounts were actually under 20. Safe driver discounts were provided when not earned, genders were misstated and insureds with at-fault accidents were not surcharged. Further, Kerbel rejected National Unity’s suggestions for rate increases by arguing that historical loss development data should not be used. Kerbel’s record keeping prevented the periodic audits from revealing the systematic under charging of premium. Rio’s negligence was not discovered until Rio’s relationship was in liquidation mode and National Unity saw the full system back up and could diagnose why the program’s loss ratios were so high
McAfee at https://mcafee16.com/issues/ (excerpts):
http://stevekerbel2016.com/issues/
(excerpts)
langa,
I don’t think the “double standard” is “apparent” at all, primarily because it doesn’t exist.
If McAfee makes his platform more libertarian, he’s still going to have the job of convincing the LP’s national convention delegates that he means it. I went out of my way to make that clear in the column I wrote after he switched party tracks and rolled out a platform with some non-libertarian stuff in it.
Based on McAfee’s public statements on government and policy before he ever got the presidential gleam in his eye, the plausible assumption when I wrote my column in September saying he should consider running as a Libertarian was that if he did so he would be the most balls-out, no-shit, guns-blazing radical libertarian candidate the LP had nominated since at least as far back as Harry Browne.
Based on Kerbel’s public statements on government and policy before he ever got the presidential gleam in his eye … well, so far as I can tell, those statements consist entirely of a book that isn’t available to read, and given the clumsiness of language in his platform that makes it look like things were likely written to a right protectionist/populist tone and then underwent a “libertarian” re-kludging that makes his platform ever so slightly more libertarian than McAfee’s in some ways and less so in others, I’d say he has at least as much convincing to do as McAfee does on the sincerity front.
…I am the ONLY LP writer to point out in pieces submitted to and published in the “mainstream media” that McAfee should get more libertarian if he wants the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.
Yes, but that’s exactly my point. Compare what you just said to this, from earlier in the thread:
When I read Kerbel’s platform, it frankly looks to me like at least two of its planks (“Economy Taxation and Jobs” and “Immigration”) started out with a nativist/protectionist bent, then got hasty re-writes when the candidate picked the Libertarian Party as his vehicle.
Perhaps I’m misreading it, but you clearly seem to be implying that there is something underhanded or sneaky about Kerbel changing his platform to suit the party whose nomination he’s seeking. That seems especially true given that you made that statement in the middle of a comment about Kerbel setting off your “con artist” detector.
Meanwhile, you seem to have no problem with McAfee changing his platform to suit the party whose nomination he’s seeking. In fact, as you point out, you have publicly encouraged him to do so. That’s what I am referring to as an apparent double standard.
langa,
Where have I “maintain[ed] that McAfee should not be held to positions that he took after declaring his candidacy, and which, to this day, remain on his official campaign site?”
Nowhere, that’s where.
In fact, quite the opposite, to a greater degree than anyone else I’m aware of in the Libertarian Party. So far as I know, I am the ONLY LP writer to point out in pieces submitted to and published in the “mainstream media” that McAfee should get more libertarian if he wants the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.
TK, I agree with you that all serious candidates should be properly vetted. I also agree that it seems odd for Kerbel to mention his book on his campaign website, without making it available (ideally for free, or at least for purchase), so that potential supporters can read it. Isn’t that the point of a “campaign book” (and if that’s not what this is, then why even mention it at all)?
On the other hand, I agree with Paulie and Caryn that you seem to be holding Kerbel to a higher standard than the other candidates, especially McAfee. Specifically, it seems unfair to want to hold Kernel to some hypothetical positions that may or may not be in a book written well before he formally announced his candidacy, while maintaining that McAfee should not be held to positions that he took after declaring his candidacy, and which, to this day, remain on his official campaign site.
Caryn,
I have never asked Mr. Kerbel’s campaign for anything. To the extent that I’ve communicated with his campaign, it’s been by bringing up things with you that you have thought worth passing on, e.g. the question about the Missouri insurance regulation thing.
Right now, I am doing my own freelance oppo research on ALL the candidates who have attracted my attention. Putting that information out to the public is a matter of criteria:
1. If I have chosen to support or am working for a candidate, I will deliver anything troubling I find about that candidate to that candidate so that he can deal with it if need be. Just as an example, when I was Steve Kubby’s campaign manager in 2008, I came across a reference to him being affiliated in some way with the Church of Scientology. That struck me as odd since he’s a Taoist, and it also struck me as something he could be attacked, or at least questioned in a damaging way, on. So I sent him a “what’s this?” note. Turned out that he had been hired as a diver for L. Ron Hubbard’s Sea Org when Sea Org actually consisted of some real ships cruising the world. But he never joined the Church or anything like that. So no biggie, but he was prepped to know that a question about it might pop up and not be flustered if one did.
2. If I am working for a candidate I will discuss oppo research about that candidate’s opponents before releasing it publicly. I learned that lesson the hard way when I released some damaging information about Gary Nolan, the week before the nominating convention, without consulting Aaron Russo first. I nearly got fired by the campaign over it. And there’s some small chance that it cost Russo the nomination by pissing off Nolan and his people. There’s almost no question at all that it knocked Nolan out of contention (his campaign manager publicly blamed me for doing so), but the goal was to win the nomination for Russo, not just damage Nolan.
3. If I’m not working for a candidate, I’ll publicly release pretty much anything I find out about candidates that I think does or should bear on the party’s choice of nominee. It might be positive. It might be negative. But if it’s not being discussed and I think it deserves discussion, I’ll put it out there.
Like Finley Peter Dunne said, politics ain’t beanbag. We can expect the Libertarian Party and its presidential campaign to raise and spend AT LEAST $1 million on the general election campaign. Would you spend a million bucks promoting someone you hadn’t done exceptionally due diligence on? I wouldn’t, and I don’t think my party should either.
BTW, any IPR editor could have done this. Kerbel addressed this here on IPR before about the “Council”– I suppose anyone could ask him for a copy.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/steve-kerbel-seeking-libertarian-partys-2016-presidential-nomination/#comment-1151789
Checked with that self-publisher. It could be distributed as the author wishes.
@TLK – The “Council” is a secret group of people who desires the removal of personal freedoms and is in the process of taking these freedoms away day by day. Who is this “Council”, what are they doing and how can we stop them? This book clearly explains the progression we are experiencing and what needs to be done to reverse this dangerous trend.
That certainly merits a raised eyebrow.
Tom,
==That would be an odd thing for it to “seem,” since I’m not a McAfee supporter.===
I bet others think it seems that way to. But you are the best authority on you.
==But let’s suppose that Kerbel is the nominee, and that through some of the possible vicissitudes of a general election campaign, he comes to find himself polling at 10% in a key state and therefore to be worth targeting by the party that perceives him as hurting its candidate’s chances. Do you think for one minute that we won’t see a public narrative of “this guy was accused of misusing escrowed funds, and of withholding insurance checks he knew to be valid, and he SETTLED?” And isn’t that a possibility that deserves thorough laundering FIRST, among US?==
Oh course. Absolutely.
==I have been very careful not to accuse the guy of anything, because he MAY be as pure as the driven snow. I haven’t met him, so I neither like nor dislike him. But I’ve been around this tree enough times with enough candidates to know that almost NOTHING feels worse than getting sucker-punched with things that one should have known about, aired, and convinced a campaign or party to handle six months ago.==
I don’t disagree.
==An analysis of how our country is reverting to a nation of less and less freedoms. The “Council” is a secret group of people who desires the removal of personal freedoms and is in the process of taking these freedoms away day by day. Who is this “Council”, what are they doing and how can we stop them? This book clearly explains the progression we are experiencing and what needs to be done to reverse this dangerous trend.
But nobody can find, you know, the book, even though putting it out for free in e-format should be fairly easy.==
With self-publishers it isn’t always easy. I do not know the situation here, so it is all guessing.
==And oddly, I don’t mention this “Council” or its machinations on my campaign web site, even though earlier I was so concerned about them that I wrote a book about what they’re up to, and am now promoting my background as that book’s author as something of a qualification for my candidacy.==
It is background, I don’t see it as qualification, thus why I am not really eager to read it. And no one has ever asked during the times I have seen him personally. I am sure he would expound upon it if asked. No one has at those times.
==Seems like something anyone who’s considering supporting me would want to know more about, doesn’t it?==
My issue isn’t with you wanted to know about it. My issue was with the odd implications you seemed to be making.
Have you asked his campaign for a copy or about it?
Caryn,
You write:
“It seems to me that you are letting your support for McAfee turn into unfair opposition to Kerbel”
That would be an odd thing for it to “seem,” since I’m not a McAfee supporter.
Yes, I’m aware that there’s a lot of litigation, and a lot of complaining, in insurance. That’s why when relating my brief oppo research outing, I excluded cases/complaints where what seemed to be at stake was “the company rejected my claim and I think they shouldn’t have,” Better Business Bureau complaints that OH MY GOD THEY TOOK A WEEK TO PROCESS MY CLAIM, and so forth.
And yes, I’m aware of the regulatory minefield, and sympathetic to people who fall afoul of regulators through no fault of their own. I am PERSONALLY, for lack of any reason not to be, satisfied with Mr. Kerbel’s explanations of the two cases I’ve brought up for comment by him (I don’t quite understand the third one, in which he settled versus another company’s request for a restraining order, yet).
But let’s suppose that Kerbel is the nominee, and that through some of the possible vicissitudes of a general election campaign, he comes to find himself polling at 10% in a key state and therefore to be worth targeting by the party that perceives him as hurting its candidate’s chances. Do you think for one minute that we won’t see a public narrative of “this guy was accused of misusing escrowed funds, and of withholding insurance checks he knew to be valid, and he SETTLED?” And isn’t that a possibility that deserves thorough laundering FIRST, among US?
I have been very careful not to accuse the guy of anything, because he MAY be as pure as the driven snow. I haven’t met him, so I neither like nor dislike him. But I’ve been around this tree enough times with enough candidates to know that almost NOTHING feels worse than getting sucker-punched with things that one should have known about, aired, and convinced a campaign or party to handle six months ago.
“Book: Your complaint here is incoherent to me.”
Well, let’s see.
I’m a presidential candidate.
I mention on my campaign web site, and in bio sketches for various public appearances, that “I [am] also a published author. [My] non-fiction handbook-style guide, ‘Take ‘Everyman’ Down — A 12 Step Program to servitude of the American Populace and Destruction of the American Dream’ is a book calling attention to the dire nature of America’s current status while also offering positive routes for improvement.”
When people go to find out about the book, they learn from Google Books that it is:
But nobody can find, you know, the book, even though putting it out for free in e-format should be fairly easy.
And oddly, I don’t mention this “Council” or its machinations on my campaign web site, even though earlier I was so concerned about them that I wrote a book about what they’re up to, and am now promoting my background as that book’s author as something of a qualification for my candidacy.
Seems like that would be something I’d want to talk about, wouldn’t it?
Seems like something anyone who’s considering supporting me would want to know more about, doesn’t it?
I do not think published in this day and age means that. I say I am published. I am self-published. By choice. I didn’t wish for anyone to tell me what to keep in or keep out. I had enough of a following and support that I likely could have gotten published by an outsider. That is a guess though.
I have heard Steve speak numerous times, he goes into detail about his business life. Perhaps you think that needs more mention on his site.. okay… but he goes into it in his appearances.
Should the book be on his site? I dunno, but that seems like a good idea if he is going to mention it, agreed. Perhaps there is some odd agreement with the self-publisher. I know that when I was shopping for self-publishers I was warned about such things and chose Xulon for many reasons one of them being freedom to do as a I wished.
**Steve is also a published author. His non-fiction handbook-style guide, “Take “Everyman” Down – A 12 Step Program to servitude of the American Populace and Destruction of the American Dream” is a book calling attention to the dire nature of America’s current status while also offering positive routes for improvement. **
That’s the second paragraph on his “About” page. He seemed to think it relevant enough to rank that prominent a mention; in fact it’s more detail than he goes into about his business career or anything else about his life before running for President. I agree with TLK it is odd this book isn’t available anywhere. If he self-published, and it’s no longer for sale, he should be able to just toss a pdf or e-book version of it on the website.
“Published author” also strongly implies “not self-published.”
Paulie,
==He does lots of in-person outreach to the public with a real libertarian message at LPCO events.==
CO Libertarians enthusiastically support him for a reason… even those that are much more radical than he is. And when he first came on the scene, we were a suspicious lot…. I certainly was.
Well my “puff piece” is getting a lot of discussion 🙂
Tom,
I was going to write a lot more but then you said,l
=It’s partly my own fault, but I think I’m coming off as more specifically “anti-Kerbel” than I actually am.==
Because you are, and it is puzzling to me. It seems to me that you are letting your support for McAfee turn into unfair opposition to Kerbel. I don’t support McAfee but don’t spend terribly much time on it. I only spend a goodly amount of time on Petersen because I think he has openly repudiated the Party and thus disqualified. If he were merely a bad candidate, I wouldn’t care nearly as much as I prefer to support rather than oppose.
So some short comments,
Insurance litigation: As you may not know, I am an insurance law paralegal. I have been doing it for two decades. Insurance companies get sued. A. Lot. It is an absolute fact of life for that business. Some suits are justified, others are not, but it is a big part of that industry’s life.
Settling Regulatory Suits: This is also a fact of business life. You seem to putting Kerbel in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t situation. You are criticizing him for not putting his view that he was shafted by regulations front and center, yet I suspect if he did, you would be saying that a campaign shouldn’t be a personal vendetta. I happen to feel he balances this well. It is a motivation for him but he is not looking to lead a happy band of Libertarians to avenge his personal grudge. When he met with the LPCO Board this is the first thing he told us. He didn’t have to make it the topic of discussion each time.
Book: Your complaint here is incoherent to me. He wrote a book before his campaign. It was a self-published affair. Of course he is going to mention he is a relevant author. The fact that the book is not available — so? You seem to be saying at some point that he planned it that way so that some unlibertarian views would not be found out… what crystal ball did he have? Once a book is out there, it is out there…. It doesn’t appear he ever really pushed it before and didn’t choose a good self-publisher. I just don’t get the argument being made here. Have you asked his campaign how to get a copy? It wouldn’t surprise me if his views have become more libertarian. I wasn’t a libertarian two years ago. I have become (in my opinion) more libertarian over the past 18 months. Kerbel’s view have shifted more libertarian in the time I have known him (as you claim McAfee’s are).
A second note:
Yes, there was fully developed oppo research on Michael Badnarik before the convention. A few people like George who were not at the time tightly tied to another campaign did what they could to publicize what they saw as his flaws.
Why did the Nolan and Russo campaigns not attack Badnarik? I can’t speak for the Nolan campaign, but my guess is their reasoning was similar to ours. When I discussed the matter with Aaron Russo and Steve Gordon, our unanimous conclusion was that Badnarik being in the mix was a good thing that hurt Nolan more than it hurt Russo, and that attacking him would just make us look like the bad guys and hurt us more than it hurt Nolan. Since we didn’t expect him to be a huge factor, better to just let him toodle along unmolested.
And then he whipped ALL our asses.
Well, yes, all of us worked on Badnarik’s campaign would like to tell ourselves that we really ran things and that Badnarik just did what he was told and so things turned out OK.
That’s not entirely unfair …
… but Badnarik didn’t HAVE to do as he was told. He won the nomination fair and square, after running his pre-nomination campaign his way.
He DECIDED to accept Fred Collins’s and Barb Goushaw’s offer to run his campaign, and the conditions that came with that, and to allow people to be brought on board who knew how to make various things happen.
As you’ve pointed vis a vis ghost writers, when you hire a ghost writer to write something for you, it’s yours, YOU are the “author.”
When a presidential candidate makes choices, those choices and the results of those choices are his.
Yes, Badnarik allowed Fred and Barb and a bunch of other people (I felt fortunate to be one of them) to manage him. Everyone else ran all the various operations, he got his ass on the road and worked it off. That was HIM. It was HIS campaign. He gets the credit or the blame for it. And I think he deserves credit.
“And as it turned out, Badnarik did run a fine campaign.”
is really “And, as it turned out, Badnarik had a fine campaign run for him.”
The fact is that the Libertarian Party did absolutely no vetting of the former New Mexico governor in 2012, which made Ron Nielsen’s rip-off of LP contributors so much easier.
I’m not blaming Gary, but he was probably too stupid to know what was really going on. Anybody duped by the Bush family — the lackeys for the financial oligarchy — clearly isn’t qualified for the presidency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
I think all of the candidates have good and bad points. We should know the bad points and they should be addressed, but the good points should be kept in mind too. I can easily imagine some of the nastiness I would get if I was eligible and willing to run, and I’m sure someone would dig up, invent or distort dirt on me that I couldn’t even begin to think up on my own. Is it any wonder we don’t have stronger and better campaigns?
“Darcy,
Actually, that’s the first time I remember hearing about it.” – Paulie
Gary Johnson enthusiastically backed George W. Bush in 2000. I brought that up briefly in comments here on IPR in 2012, but nobody seemed interested at the time.
I can send you the newspaper clippings if you want to see them.
It seems sort of shameful that a guy who supported and actively campaigned for Bush — America’s most illegitimate president, as it turned out — would have ever had the gall to even seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.
Gary Johnson can’t be taken seriously as a libertarian.
His nomination could have been avoided if anybody dug into his past.
That’s precisely the point that Tom Knapp is currently making…
Interestingly, in 2000 Al Gore carried New Mexico — and Harry Browne more than covered the difference between him and Bush.
If Bush had won New Mexico, Florida wouldn’t have mattered.
And of course Browne got many multiples of the number Bush lost by in Florida as well.
Darcy,
Actually, that’s the first time I remember hearing about it.
George,
My argument is that thorough vetting SHOULD matter — and that in the past it hasn’t.
Yes, you thoroughly vetted Badnarik. And as it turned out, Badnarik did run a fine campaign.
I was not ultimately displeased with that outcome (I supported Russo but in retrospect think Badnarik gave us a better campaign than Russo would have).
What pissed me off, as I discuss here, was all the people running around RIGHT AFTER THEY HAD NOMINATED HIM, complaining about all the things that they had just found out about him, that they would have known BEFORE THEY VOTED if they’d bothered to do even minimal homework before, or even AT, the convention.
Does thorough vetting matter? Readers may try to find my article of years ago on Lee Wrights’ old web site analyzing the claims in Badnarik’s book, an analysis that raised doubts about his expertise in the Constitution.
No, I do not regret having been his national volunteer coordinator, starting on Labor Day.
The fact is that Gary Johnson, during his final term as governor of New Mexico, helped pave the way for arguably the most authoritarian president in American history in the year 2000, a president responsible for the current mess in the Middle East and the corresponding — and unprecedented — erosion of individual liberties in the United States.
Johnson not only stumped for Bush in the Land of Enchantment, but also campaigned for the Republican presidential nominee in several other states that autumn, including Georgia, where he told sixty employees of a software firm in Atlanta that Dubya was a really smart man, a master of policy details.
Johnson’s political instincts have always left a lot to be desired. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
With nothing to lose — he wasn’t running for a third term as governor in 2002 — why didn’t Gary Johnson support the Libertarian Party’s Harry Browne that year?
It’s a fair question and one that his supporters have yet to answer.
Was there any serious oppo research done on Johnson in 2012? I didn’t do it because I was (as it turned out, temporarily) retired from electoral and LP politics at the time.
Just on a quick gloss — not even on the same order of magnitude of time as I’ve spent on McAfee, Perry or Kerbel — it looks to me like the Kochs bought themselves a $300+ million highway boondoggle from him in New Mexico, like most of his OAI and early 2012 campaign insiders were not just Republican operatives but a specific KIND of Republican operatives (the kind who do things like “caging” to suppress minority voting and third party straw candidacies to redirect non-Republican votes from the Democrats to a third party).
I’m starting to think I need to get to work in earnest on a full oppo research workup on every candidate.
Paulie,
It’s partly my own fault, but I think I’m coming off as more specifically “anti-Kerbel” than I actually am.
What I am for is thorough vetting. See here for more details.
Wouldn’t it be really exciting if the Libertarian Party actually nominated a libertarian — instead of yet another washed-up Republican — for the presidency?
Political parties should, at in keeping with their respective platforms, nominate candidates in line with their ideology. Otherwise, what’s the point of third parties?
At the very least, the LP shouldn’t back a candidate who tried to tell his audiences sixteen years ago that George W. Bush was really a policy wonk, a man capable of mastering policy details when every political observer, especially those in Texas, really knew differently. There was more than one “ban the burka” moment in that campaign — something Libertarians should keep in mind this year.
Just saying….
I agree on the first and last points, but even with the “fair” tax and shariaphobia, I still find GJ to be substantially more libertarian than what’s currently on the McAfee16 site and echoed in at least one recent interview.
And, as a former marijuana company CEO and proud holder of the most ACLU torches of any presidential candidate the ACLU rated for 2012, GJ isn’t a Barr/Root style conservatarian, either, despite the past association with the Republicans.
I keep hearing that too, but unfortunately not from anyone with a campaign email address. And the only response I did get from a campaign email address claimed that they are the only authorized representatives and ignored most of the rest of my questions and suggestions. So far, though, no rewrite and the interview I read confirmed what’s on the website.
I could be wrong but I think we may be speaking to the same two people. If I am correct neither of them has a campaign email address or any proof that they are in fact representing McAfee accurately. I would like to believe them, but I also have to be cautious as well.
What kind of odds are you giving on that one? I may be tempted to lay a small wager on it.
Well, if he wants a rewrite, I can’t think of anyone better. Oh well.
It seems that most of those have negative associations with the name, but I could be wrong.
Which gives him a fairly clean canvas to paint whatever picture he wants, and right now he’s painting a pretty good one.
So has everyone from Bill Clinton to George and Jeb Bush to Bill Maher to Alex Jones to Lyndon Larouche to Neal Boortz and Glenn Beck, regardless of whether the identification is plausible or not. The media or the person themselves referring to a somewhat famous person as libertarian has to be taken with large helpings of salt.
True, but then he’s never been publicly identified with any other political label as far as I know, and also doesn’t limit his donations to under $5 or fairly exotic contribution methods, isn’t planning civil disobedience against minimum wage laws and campaign finance disclosure to incorrectly reinforce and confirm grossly distorted caricatures of libertarians as seen by the left, hasn’t publicly asked Kanye West to be his VP pick without ever getting a hold of the man first, can afford to hop on a plane when he has a spare day or two, is not above doing retail politics whether it be with the general public or a small room of LP activists, isn’t photographed holding a gun to his own head, hasn’t blown 96% or more of his net worth or 93% of his company’s public value, and is not as far as I know shariaphobic, so he may in a lot of ways make up for his lack of political history… but all of the candidates I referred to also have many positive qualities I can also list here, so I hope no one takes that list the wrong way.
…but I’ll figure it out in the next few days.
Also, in many respects, I agree with Tom’s assertion that Darryl Perry is probably the most libertarian candidate at this point in the nominating process. There’s really no question about that. I couldn’t quite figure out how to contribute to his longshot campaign via bitcoin, but Darryl is my sentimental favorite…
Paulie,
I’m not sure what you mean by “going negative.” If you think bringing up obvious issues that are impossible to avoid on a quick look is “going negative,” I don’t know what to tell you except that apparently you’ve never seen me go negative for real — which I know not to be the case. Here’s a MILD example of me “going negative”:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2010/04/libertarian-party-cant-afford-wayne.html
Or you could ask Gary Nolan or Steve Dasbach what it looks like when I “go negative.”
Here’s the thing about Kerbel: Either he bears up under scrutiny or not. My very cursory investigations so far say there may be problems with him, but either way, better to find out now than, say, ten minutes after the nomination …
… if for no other reason than that it’s annoying and embarrassing to have a bunch of delegates running around screaming “but I didn’t knoooooooowwwwwwww [insert fact that they would have known if they’d bothered to pull their heads out of their asses and look into things at any point prior to casting their nomination votes]” ten minutes AFTER voting to nominate someone.
I agree with Tom Knapp’s observations. I, too, have tried to purchase Steve Kerbel’s book, but it doesn’t seem available anywhere.
McAfee’s life, on the other hand, appears to be something of an open book — the trials and tribulations of somebody who has consistently fought for the right of individual privacy, a guy with brass balls willing to fight for the country’s better self.
He just might be the kind of leader the country needs at this point in our history.
Unlike LP frontrunner Gary Johnson, you never would have found a guy like McAfee campaigning for an authoritarian Republican like George W. Bush in the razor-thin 2000 presidential election.
Right now, I’d rate McAfee’s platform as not nearly as libertarian as Perry’s, about as libertarian as Johnson’s, and not libertarian enough for me to be comfortable with it. I’ll be interested to find out whether it really expresses McAfee’s views or if, as I’ve been told by people close to and/or inside his campaign, it was “boilerplate” written for him on issues he hadn’t bothered to instruct the writers on.
I have offered through no fewer than three channels — two people associated to one degree or another with the campaign, who forwarded my offer, and directly to McAfee himself via contact info one of those people gave me — to help McAfee with e.g. position paper writing.
No response. No biggie. From my end of things he’s my third, not first, choice, and he’s likely going to get the nomination with or without my help. From his end of things, I’m someone he’s never heard of and he has no reason to suppose he needs my help. My interest was and is helping to get a more libertarian general election campaign than we’ve had the last couple of times around the track.
For me, the comparison between McAfee and Kerbel goes something like this:
– Some people know who McAfee is; nobody seems to have heard of Kerbel until very recently, and that number is still “not very many.”
– McAfee has been publicly identified with the label “libertarian” since AT LEAST as far back as 2010 that I can verify (in a Guardian story about his life in Belize). Kerbel has been publicly identified with that label, to the extent that he’s publicly been identified at all, since he declared for the LP’s presidential nomination.
– I have problems with both their platforms. But I’m less trusting of Kerbel’s, because McAfee has a long history of publicly wearing his heart on his sleeve while Kerbel strikes me as, well, sketchy in general.
I don’t see the point of going negative here, especially if you don’t think he has much of a chance at the nomination. He’s putting out great videos and graphics and spreading them as widely as he can. They have a solid libertarian message even if he is just coming around to those positions or even if he is pretending to hold them just to try to get the nomination. He does lots of in-person outreach to the public with a real libertarian message at LPCO events. He does what media he can get and as far as what I have seen and heard also sharing a libertarian message. So what’s the problem? If Wayne had used his MiniTrump level attention-seeking talents to push the message that Steve Kerbel is pushing right now, I’d have been pretty happy, regardless of whether his conversion was recent or even genuine. I would have still preferred Kubby and Ruwart but come on, he would have been an asset had he done that.
Well, hopefully you or someone else with solid ideological views and writing skills can do the same for McAfee’s platform planks, several of which would be more at home with Bernie or Jill Stein than in the LP. I’d help with that too if given the chance. Kerbel is at the very least a few months ahead of McAfee on that rewrite, assuming you are correct.
Joe 2016/01/14 at 22:40
1) Your attack on Caryn is misplaced, as several people noted,
2) It would be better if you either include your last name or choose a fairly unique screen name. There is at least one other Joe who writes and comments here who isn’t you. That’s what happens when two or more people with a common first name comment at the same site with only a first name and it causes unneeded confusion.
Caryn
Very true!
Well, to some extent it is a merit badge. To have someone who has zero history with the party, movement or with political campaigns makes it more likely that they will change their positions again after the nomination, drop out of the race after the nomination, or some other such unpredictable stunt. That’s not to say anything like that will happen, but it’s a bigger risk with a newcomer to the party and movement and to political campaigns than with someone with lots of party, movement and political campaign background.
I agree, though, that the factors you mentioned are a huge part of the decision of who to nominate.
On the other hand, McAfee has a published and current campaign platform and recent media interview(s) where he pretty thoroughly rejects libertarian economic positions. He is good on other issues and I have second hand anonymous sources and also as far as I know unofficial and unauthorized campaign supporters who tell me he will be revising these position statements and possibly never believed them to begin with, but no official statements to that effect from the man himself or anyone with a campaign email address that I have yet seen.
So if Kerbel’s views were recently much less libertarian, he’s at least made a good show of adjusting them, and even if it’s just his overly eager campaign volunteers, his images and videos that his campaign is posting all over FB and beyond have a solidly libertarian message and high production values. He’s going to a lot of state conventions, building a volunteer team and database, and at least trying to raise contributions, including in US currency and in amounts of over $5 per person. He called me (as did Johnson and Petersen) and tried to help the Oklahoma ballot access drive in what ways he could, and wrote letters on our behalf.
langa,
I don’t have anything against settling with the government when that might save your ass either, even if you’re being unjustly accused (I did that once myself).
On the other hand, I will be blunt: Several things about Kerbel ping my con artist meter in a way it hasn’t been pinged inside the LP since Wayne Allyn Root showed up, and that’s one of them.
Kerbel’s campaign materials reference his business past only very non-specifically. He’s got thirty years “in business.”
If I’m running for president and part of my thirty years “in business” is getting railroaded by regulators, I’m going to highlight that, not leave it unmentioned until someone asks about it, then briefly dismiss it as just one of those things.
I’ve identified a third legal case (National Unity Insurance Company v. Rio National Insurance Services, Inc. et al) — actually more than that, but I’m excluding cases that look like they might just be standard insurance suits (e.g. “you rejected my claim and I’m suing” or “two insurers can’t agree on who’s responsible for a claim-producing incident,” that kind of thing). In this case, it’s not the state going after Kerbel, it’s another insurance company seeking a restraining order of some type against him, with him stipulating/agreeing.
My guess is there’s more “there” there on the legal front.
Kerbel’s campaign materials reference a book he wrote as something of a qualification — it’s a “blueprint” for saving America. But there’s no link to order or read the book on the web site. And it’s not on Amazon. And if you dig into Google looking for it, you get a link to a self-publishing site that doesn’t seem to actually have the book for sale.
If I’m running for president and I’ve written a book-length political blueprint that describes my program/platform, I’m going to flog the hell out of it, not mention it in passing while not making it available.
When I read Kerbel’s platform, it frankly looks to me like at least two of its planks (“Economy Taxation and Jobs” and “Immigration”) started out with a nativist/protectionist bent, then got hasty re-writes when the candidate picked the Libertarian Party as his vehicle.
I’ve spent a grand total of maybe 20 minutes doping personal/business research on Mr. Kerbel and maybe an hour on his politics . I’ve so far refrained from doing the full Wayne Allyn Root personal/business/politics oppo research colonoscopy on him because at this time, I don’t consider him a heavyweight contender for the nomination, as Root was until Ruwart and Barr threw in. A decent oppo research workup would cost a little bit of money that I don’t care to spend unless I have to.
Hmm, I’m thinking about whom to support for president. Do I want the guy who fights the government, even to the extent of having to spend a month in the jungle fleeing for his life, or the guy who bends over, forks over, then later says that’s unjust but just how things had to be?
Eh, people cutting deals with the government doesn’t really bother me, as long as no third party gets hurt by it. I see it as analogous to the decision of whether to pay your taxes, or risk jail time by taking a stand. Sure, if you want to be a martyr, that’s great, but I don’t think there’s any obligation to do so, and I don’t think any less of someone because they decline to martyr themselves. For example, I didn’t think any less of Ross Ulbricht for putting up a facade of contrition at his sentencing. (Where I draw the line is when saving yourself hurts others. For example, I consider the vast majority of informants to be scum.)
Kerbel appears to be running a real campaign, as opposed to some other candidates. That is a plus IMO. Given a choice between two candidates with roughly similar views, I would certainly choose the better campaigner; depending on the degree of difference, I might well choose the better campaigner over the candidate with whom I agree more.
This is an excellent summary of the reason I am currently supporting Kerbel over Perry, even though, from a purely ideological standpoint, I am much closer to Perry.
Wrong, Tom. Things I say and do are not based on mere whims of “liking” somebody or not. My comments about Haugh are based on the fact that he was a lousey Executive Director of the LP of NC ran that state party down to the point that they could not afford to pay him. He did a lousy job as the LNC’s Candidate Tracker, basically causing the party to waste $1,200 a month paying him to do little work (sometimes there were only 6 candidates on there, which meant he got paid $200 per candidate, for something that probably took no more than 10 hours of work per month (probably less), which meant that he was getting paid by LP donors for $200 or more per hour), certainly nothing of value. He did a lousy job as the LP’s Political Director, and as Political Director he played a major role in LP candidates not making the ballot in multiple states (the LP had its worst ballot access during a presidential election since either 1984 or 1988 depending on the criteria you want to use during Haugh’s tenure as Political Director), therefore squandering thousands and thousands of LP donor dollars. Haugh was fired from his job as Political Director, and then he went on to work for Free And Equal, where he also caused a lot of problems, and where he helped cause more ballot access drives to fail, which led to him being fired from Free And Equal.
So with a track record like this, I would not put much weight into his endorsement of Austin Petersen. If anything, this ought to be regarded as a reason to not vote for Mr. Petersen.
“Unless someone has some other evidence, at this point, I see no reason to give those allegations any more credence than the ones that were made against McAfee in Belize.”
Well, let’s see:
McAfee plausibly denies, and has always plausibly denied, the implicit allegations in Belize (he has never been actually accused of the crime, nor has any evidence other than the most loosely circumstantial ever been offered to suggest that he did it).
Kerbel settled over the allegations in Missouri.
True, the settlements seem to have been on a not unusual “I’ll give you what you want without admitting what you allege” basis, and that when asked about them LATER he denied the allegations and asserted that it was just the heavy hand of government fvcking with him and easier to settle than to fight.
Hmm, I’m thinking about whom to support for president. Do I want the guy who fights the government, even to the extent of having to spend a month in the jungle fleeing for his life, or the guy who bends over, forks over, then later says that’s unjust but just how things had to be?
I was interested in reading Kerbel’s book, but couldn’t find it. The closest thing I found was a link that seems to be some self-publishing site; when I try to order Kerbel’s book, it acts like I’m publishing my own book — even asks me how many pages — rather than ordering his. I don’t know if that’s a substantive criticism or not. I do know that it bothers me. I published my own book only a year ago, and it’s just not that hard compared to some of the other things the campaign is doing. If the book is not easily available, it strikes me that maybe that’s intentional — that maybe the candidate wants credit for writing a book, but would rather not show it off because the content doesn’t match the current platform claims very well.
Kerbel appears to be running a real campaign, as opposed to some other candidates. That is a plus IMO. Given a choice between two candidates with roughly similar views, I would certainly choose the better campaigner; depending on the degree of difference, I might well choose the better campaigner over the candidate with whom I agree more.
I never heard of Young Libertarians for America, but I do remember Students for a Libertarian Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Libertarian_Society
When I attended college in the early 1980s, I read their SLS newspaper. It was pretty well done, with some interesting philosophical and political analyses.
I remember one article in particular that critiqued conspiracy theories involving the CFR and Trilateral Commission. The article observed that while there likely was an establishment power elite, they likely weren’t as unified or monolithic as some conspiracists imagined.
Anyone else here old enough to recall the old SLS?
A woman who’s been in the LP only slightly longer than Kerbel writes an article and then tells us he’s the “most libertarian” of any of the candidates and we’re supposed to buy it. I don’t. He has no record of being libertarian, regardless of what is posted on his site. Anybody can build a web site and say they are libertarian. Show me your record or sit down, please.
The LP presidential nomination isn’t some kind of Merit Badge to reward activism. We should nominate whoever will do the best job of communicating libertarian ideas to the public, and persuading people to accept those ideas, and to join the party (and the broader movement). If someone comes along who can do that, that person should be the nominee, even if they joined the party the day of the convention.
If your just looking to vote for anyone who is not Gary Johnson, that’s fine. But at least have the decency to admit that’s all that it is.
If you’re just a Gary Johnson fanboy who is butthurt that this year’s nomination process may not turn out to be the coronation that you have been fantasizing about, that’s fine. But at least have the decency to admit that’s all that it is.
1) He has legal scandals in his background that, if the allegations are true, constitute initiations of force. At some point, if his campaign ever makes any headway beyond stuffing Internet polls and getting Caryn to post puff pieces at IPR, those scandals will bear further investigation (I haven’t investigated them further because he gave plausible answers to my questions and because so far I estimate his topout potential at the convention at 3-5%, going to Perry once he’s eliminated).
Unless someone has some other evidence, at this point, I see no reason to give those allegations any more credence than the ones that were made against McAfee in Belize. Furthermore, if one believes Kerbel’s explanation — and right now, I see no reason to do otherwise — it also explains why he is a relative newcomer to the LP. He didn’t realize just how large and obtrusive the government had become, until he got a firsthand example, in the form of being told to bend over and grab his ankles.
2) He proposes a novel, unexplained tax plan — a “procurement” tax — in his platform that is less libertarian than the “repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing” position that has characterized the LP’s campaigns for the last 20 years.
I will readily concede that Kerbel’s platform is not libertarian enough for my tastes. Then again, the last LP presidential nominee whose platform was libertarian enough for my tastes was Harry Browne. More importantly, I would say that out of the current contenders, Kerbel’s platform is more libertarian than anyone, with the clear exception of Perry. Not coincidentally, those two are at the top of my list. (I have explained on other threads here why Kerbel is my first choice and Perry my second, rather than the other way around.)
Gary Johnson will ban burqas
Untrue.
Does length of time in the Libertarian Party make you a better Libertarian? Are the so called Libertarians that petty that they have to compare the size of their “length of stay” in order to determine who is more Libertarian?
I’m glad to know that being “Liberterain” and the degree to which one is all depends on the length of time being Libertarian.
Just so you know, Steve is more Libertarian than Gary Johnson. I don’t care how long they have been in the party, I care about their principles. Gary Johnson will ban burqas, Steve will defend the right to wear or not wear whatever the hell you want. Which is more Libertarian? The guy who will ban burqas or the guy who will stand on principle?
Defend principles. Don’t defend “length of time”.
Well, there’s a pretty substantial difference there, Andy.
Your problem with Haugh endorsing Petersen is that you don’t like Haugh. That doesn’t change the fact that Haugh is a long-time party activist who has run credible campaigns for public office and in his last campaign polled as high as 11% in a three-way race, threatened to force a major party run-off, and more than covered the difference between the major party candidates. Like him or not, he’s arguably qualified to function as an LP “opinion leader.”
This organization, on the other hand, seems to be very new and not previously particularly active in LP politics, so I’m interested in knowing more about it before I weigh the importance of its endorsement.
This endorsement announcement is almost as lame as when Austin Petersen announced that he’d been endorsed by Sean Haugh. That was really just another reason to not vote for Austin Petersen.
FWIW, I am sometimes asked by people to post things on IPR, but not the Kerbel campaign. I volunteer to do so. And I have declined on some things I have been asked by others to post on IPR. I post things I find interesting or I think are bits of local goings-on and arcana that aren’t covered anywhere else for the Party enthusiasts here, particularly things that originate in Colorado since I am in a position to know about them.
Tom,
==Who is this that has said Kerbel is the “most libertarian” of the candidates? To the best of my recollection, it has not been Caryn, even when I privately engaged her on the question of what she sees in Kerbel.==
Thank you Tom.. I was wondering where that came from with Joe and wondering why he said I “wrote” this — I posted it. I didn’t write it. But then again, his attack on the fact that I have been with the LP for a short period of time was … interesting. I have never hid that fact. But one thing I will say. I will put the amount of volunteer time I spend on the LP against nearly anyone.
==Speaking of which, I apologize for my tone vis a vis “getting [her] to post puff pieces.” I have no reason to believe that she’s being asked by the Kerbel campaign to post what she posts. IPR editors post the stuff they find interesting and think worth calling attention to.==
Thank you. I am not asked by them, I do it because I find it interesting. I also routinely post things by Darryl Perry and minor squabbles within the LP (for which I get criticism as well, but party arcana interests me).
==That said, I do wish that all of us who post content at IPR will be careful to do two things:
1) Offer information on sources that may be unfamiliar. In this example, who are “Young Libertarians for America?” How big are they, what have they done before, etc. The more well-known, the less such information needs to appear in each piece. But if I issue a press release tomorrow from “Middle-Aged Libertarians for Florida” (MALF, represented by a stylized logo of Donnie Most’s face) endorsing Rhett Smith, I hope that any IPR reporter thinking about posting the release will think to ask, and then convey the answers to, whether MALF consists of just me and my dog or whether there are more of us, when we were formed and why, what we’ve done, etc.==
That is a fair point, but I tend to view things more in line with your first post. We are a small movement and a small Party (relatively speaking). But that is a fair point.
==2) Disclose our associations, if any, with the organizations, campaigns and candidates we cover. And maybe even our preferences among candidates, even if there are no formal associations. Nobody expects us all to be “objective,” but we should disclose our biases.==
I have never hidden my preference for Kerbel. It is fairly well-known here. I was asked to be a part of his campaign and declined — not because I wouldn’t want to– but because my prior obligations to the LP left me with no time.
Actually I will modify that a bit. My preference is for this Party and its Principles. For our continued existence and our unity. That drives my preference for Kerbel as I said when we discussed things privately. If my only metric was radicality or the most libertarian, Darryl Perry would win that hands down.
The attack from Joe was even more… ahem… “interesting” considering the excitement and enthusiasm I had for Johnson declaring and my encouragement of his supporters.
Who is this that has said Kerbel is the “most libertarian” of the candidates? To the best of my recollection, it has not been Caryn, even when I privately engaged her on the question of what she sees in Kerbel.
Speaking of which, I apologize for my tone vis a vis “getting [her] to post puff pieces.” I have no reason to believe that she’s being asked by the Kerbel campaign to post what she posts. IPR editors post the stuff they find interesting and think worth calling attention to.
That said, I do wish that all of us who post content at IPR will be careful to do two things:
1) Offer information on sources that may be unfamiliar. In this example, who are “Young Libertarians for America?” How big are they, what have they done before, etc. The more well-known, the less such information needs to appear in each piece. But if I issue a press release tomorrow from “Middle-Aged Libertarians for Florida” (MALF, represented by a stylized logo of Donnie Most’s face) endorsing Rhett Smith, I hope that any IPR reporter thinking about posting the release will think to ask, and then convey the answers to, whether MALF consists of just me and my dog or whether there are more of us, when we were formed and why, what we’ve done, etc.
2) Disclose our associations, if any, with the organizations, campaigns and candidates we cover. And maybe even our preferences among candidates, even if there are no formal associations. Nobody expects us all to be “objective,” but we should disclose our biases.
A woman who’s been in the LP only slightly longer than Kerbel writes an article and then tells us he’s the “most libertarian” of any of the candidates and we’re supposed to buy it. I don’t. He has no record of being libertarian, regardless of what is posted on his site. Anybody can build a web site and say they are libertarian. Show me your record or sit down, please.
If your just looking to vote for anyone who is not Gary Johnson, that’s fine. But at least have the decency to admit that’s all that it is.
langa,
“I haven’t noticed the substantive criticism of Kerbel or his positions.”
There, fixed that for ya.
Here are two substantive criticisms that I have made:
1) He has legal scandals in his background that, if the allegations are true, constitute initiations of force. At some point, if his campaign ever makes any headway beyond stuffing Internet polls and getting Caryn to post puff pieces at IPR, those scandals will bear further investigation (I haven’t investigated them further because he gave plausible answers to my questions and because so far I estimate his topout potential at the convention at 3-5%, going to Perry once he’s eliminated).
2) He proposes a novel, unexplained tax plan — a “procurement” tax — in his platform that is less libertarian than the “repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing” position that has characterized the LP’s campaigns for the last 20 years.
I’m young, and a Libertarian. I don’t recall being consulted. 😉
“The newsletter garbage” would have buried Ron Paul. It was the ace in the hold they didn’t even need.
I have noticed there is never any substantive criticism of Kerbel or his positions. It’s always ad hominem attacks about him being new to the LP, or about these alleged skeletons in his closet. Honestly, that sort of petty mudslinging just makes him look better. It reminds me of how Ron Paul haters kept bringing up the newsletter garbage, over and over and over, simply because they could find nothing else bad to talk about.
“Other than reciting the Libertarian Party’s platform in a bunch of Facebook memes, how will Steve Kerbel be any more libertarian than Nancy Pelosi’s toenails???”
Well, to be fair, his own platform is mostly fairly libertarian. Not so much so that I understand his apparent high level of support among radicals, but not terrible. Definitely better than, say, Bob Barr or Wayne Allyn Root.
I wonder if the good folks in “Young Libertarians For America” have been libertarians longer than Mr. Kerbel? That wouldn’t be hard. He joined the party less than a year ago so that he could run for President. And he admitted he was not politically active prior to that. Other than reciting the Libertarian Party’s platform in a bunch of Facebook memes, how will Steve Kerbel be any more libertarian than Nancy Pelosi’s toenails???
A manufactured endorsement? How many YLAs are there? Who started them? How was the endorsement determined?
Methinks there might be something rotten in Libertarianland.
Andy,
They appear to consist of three people in Utah who’ve had a web site for about a year and have built up fewer than 1,000 Facebook likes. Nothing wrong with that, every little bit of activism helps, but I do wish that when IPR runs a news story about an endorsement, it included some information about the endorsers.
Have any other organizations no one has ever heard of endorsed Kerbel?
You have now. They are active in the Libertarian community on FB
I have never heard of Young Libertarians for America.